Aims. To examine whether natural language processing (NLP) using a clinically based large language model (LLM) could be used to predict patient selection for total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) from routinely available free-text radiology reports. Methods. Data pre-processing and analyses were conducted according to the Artificial intelligence to Revolutionize the patient Care pathway in Hip and knEe aRthroplastY (ARCHERY) project protocol. This included use of de-identified Scottish regional clinical data of patients referred for consideration of THA/TKA, held in a secure data environment designed for artificial intelligence (AI) inference. Only preoperative radiology reports were included. NLP algorithms were based on the freely available GatorTron model, a LLM trained on over 82 billion words of de-identified clinical text. Two inference tasks were performed: assessment after model-fine tuning (50 Epochs and three cycles of k-fold cross validation), and external validation. Results. For THA, there were 5,558 patient radiology reports included, of which 4,137 were used for model training and testing, and 1,421 for external validation. Following training, model performance demonstrated average (mean across three folds) accuracy, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) values of 0.850 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.833 to 0.867), 0.813 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.841), and 0.847 (95% CI 0.822 to 0.872), respectively. For TKA, 7,457 patient radiology reports were included, with 3,478 used for model training and testing, and 3,152 for external validation. Performance metrics included accuracy, F1 score, and AUROC values of 0.757 (95% CI 0.702 to 0.811), 0.543 (95% CI 0.479 to 0.607), and 0.717 (95% CI 0.657 to 0.778) respectively. There was a notable deterioration in performance on external validation in both cohorts. Conclusion. The use of routinely available preoperative radiology reports provides promising potential to help screen suitable candidates for THA, but not for TKA. The external validation results demonstrate the importance of further model testing and training when confronted with new clinical cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):688–695

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303.

Aims. Natural Language Processing (NLP) offers an automated method to extract data from unstructured free text fields for arthroplasty registry participation. Our objective was to investigate how accurately NLP can be used to extract structured clinical data from unstructured clinical notes when compared with manual data extraction. Methods. A group of 1,000 randomly selected clinical and hospital notes from eight different surgeons were collected for patients undergoing primary arthroplasty between 2012 and 2018. In all, 19 preoperative, 17 operative, and two postoperative variables of interest were manually extracted from these notes. A NLP algorithm was created to automatically extract these variables from a training sample of these notes, and the algorithm was tested on a random test sample of notes. Performance of the NLP algorithm was measured in Statistical Analysis System (SAS) by calculating the accuracy of the variables collected, the ability of the algorithm to collect the correct information when it was indeed in the note (sensitivity), and the ability of the algorithm to not collect a certain data element when it was not in the note (specificity). Results. The NLP algorithm performed well at extracting variables from unstructured data in our random test dataset (accuracy = 96.3%, sensitivity = 95.2%, and specificity = 97.4%). It performed better at extracting data that were in a structured, templated format such as range of movement (ROM) (accuracy = 98%) and implant brand (accuracy = 98%) than data that were entered with variation depending on the author of the note such as the presence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (accuracy = 90%). Conclusion. The NLP algorithm used in this study was able to identify a subset of variables from randomly selected unstructured notes in arthroplasty with an accuracy above 90%. For some variables, such as objective exam data, the accuracy was very high. Our findings suggest that automated algorithms using NLP can help orthopaedic practices retrospectively collect information for registries and quality improvement (QI) efforts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):99–104